Hauling people into court is not the way to make the world a better place. If that's as clear as you can get with why you want to go to law school, you should take some time off before you invest $100,000.00 in something you may not want in the end.

That's not necessarily true. When a court rewards damages to a plaintiff, it is because they are wronged. Doesn't the restitution of a wrong go toward 'making the world a better place'?

Aren't damages meant to make "someone" whole again? If so, the answer is no.

But given that "making the world a better place" is like urinating in the ocean, then hauling people into court seems as good a way as any.

The process of making someone whole seems wholly positive, hence 'making the world a better place'. I think that phrase, 'making the world a better place', is a little vague and wishy-washy anyway.

I disagree counselor.

While I certainly understand that making someone whole again can be viewed as a positive act, the net aggregate affect is a maintenance of the status quo e.g. you lost a dollar and are being given a dollar back. To argue that the world is a better place from the starting point of the lost dollar is not a good argument at least in terms of the spirit of "the world is a better place".

Punitive damages, on the other hand, seems like a much better argument.

Hauling people into court is not the way to make the world a better place. If that's as clear as you can get with why you want to go to law school, you should take some time off before you invest $100,000.00 in something you may not want in the end.

That's not necessarily true. When a court rewards damages to a plaintiff, it is because they are wronged. Doesn't the restitution of a wrong go toward 'making the world a better place'?

Aren't damages meant to make "someone" whole again? If so, the answer is no.

But given that "making the world a better place" is like urinating in the ocean, then hauling people into court seems as good a way as any.

The process of making someone whole seems wholly positive, hence 'making the world a better place'. I think that phrase, 'making the world a better place', is a little vague and wishy-washy anyway.

I disagree counselor.

While I certainly understand that making someone whole again can be viewed as a positive act, the net aggregate affect is a maintenance of the status quo e.g. you lost a dollar and are being given a dollar back. To argue that the world is a better place from the starting point of the lost dollar is not a good argument at least in terms of the spirit of "the world is a better place".

Punitive damages, on the other hand, seems like a much better argument.

But surely, eventually, someone will be wronged. Without recourse to civil litigation, the world (at least for that party) will surely be a worse place. Through such recourse, however, the world would be a better place (at least for that individual, but I would argue for us all).

But surely, eventually, someone will be wronged. Without recourse to civil litigation, the world (at least for that party) will surely be a worse place. Through such recourse, however, the world would be a better place (at least for that individual, but I would argue for us all).

Even allowing for the hypothetical, "Without recourse to" i.e. the absence of, the addition of the same would only serve to bring the "world" back to a certain equilibrium. Granted, that is a highly theoretical/ideological position.

In the absence of punitive damages, I'm having a hard time coming up with a scenario that would allow for the world being a better place.

Patient going in for vasectomy Due to medical negligence (doctor severes nerve bundle), patient Patient successfully brings suit - is awardedhas otherwise fully functional genitals. is left with uncorrectable ED. damages.[World is at 'balance'] [World now is worse] [World is now better than it was at T1]

But you failed to consider time. Maybe in totality your calculation is correct, but what's essential is putting yourself in a temporal perspective. If you're at 0, then get -1, you're worse off. If you're at -1 and then get +1, you're better off.

Since deciding to go to law school, people have been asking me what type of law I'd like to practice. I tell them, "It's too early to decide, I hope to find something I like."

Now, I'd like to say I'm going to law school to make the world a better place, but mostly I'm going to find a good job and make good money.

I know criminal law isn't the money maker...so, what type of law is?

Criminal defense is a big money maker, its just done mostly by small firms and solos so no real salery data. My classmate started her own pratice right out of law school (she was a criminal defese paralgegal and knows a bunch of crimnal defense lawyer who feed her work) and has been averaging 12k a month since she got lic last Aug. Don't worry if you don't know what you want to do right now, most don't even know by 3L and most folks will end up doing whatvere the firm that hires them has open. Very few people know what kind of law they want to do before law school, but a few do.

White collar, which is probably the most lucrative criminal law, is typically done in big firms (though not exclusively).